Category Archives: Philosophy

For All Fools Day, April 1, 2015

3 Replies

On this April Fools day I’m reminded of:

Democratic Senator Thomas Hart Benton, of Missouri. Before being elected to the US senate, he had been the lawyer for another Democrat, Andrew Jackson (before he was president). Like most prominent Americans of their day both men liked to settle arguments through by use of gunnery at close range. After Andrew Jackson participated in a duel with Benton’s brother, Benton himself challenged Jackson to a duel (I try to avoid this with my lawyers).

Seantor Thomas Hart Benton

Senator Thomas Hart Benton; his feud with A. Jackson, ended by common hatred of the Federal Reserve Bank

When asked about it later, Benton said, “Yes, sir, I knew him, sir; General Jackson was a very great man, sir. I shot him, sir. Afterward he was of great use to me, sir, in my battle with the United States Bank.” Ain’t that America. You can be shooting enemies one day, best of buddies the next.

In world politics and life this doesn’t happen as regularly as perhaps it should, but it happens. A few years after WWII we were allies with Germany and Italy, but enemies with the USSR. After WWI we were allies with Japan, until we weren’t; now we are again. Some day ISIS and Iran will be friends (won’t Mr A Bomb be sad).

I should also mention, and recommend the most amusing work of philosophy you are ever likely to encounter: St Erasmus of Rotterdam’s panegyric, “In Praise of Folly”. The thesis, if I may summarize: that most people like a fool and some folly; so does God. That most people don’t like long, boring lectures; neither does God. Etc. Good folly is likely to hurt you in a way you don’t mind (e.g. music, drinking, chasing women, reading long boring books if you like them); bad folly hurts others, e.g. when priest lives royally off of charity.

You might imagine that Erasmus would be executed for this but it seems he was not. It seems to me that Erasmus did something even more remarkable and made himself into a saint by claiming that God would not mind if people prayed to him for all good things. Apparently they started to, and got answered. A cheerful answer from a world of fools.

Robert E. Buxbaum, April 1, 2015.

Of Scrooge and rising wheat production

4 Replies

The Christmas Carol tells a tale that, for all the magic and fantasy, presents as true an economic picture of a man and his times as any in real-life history. Scrooge is a miserable character at the beginning of the tale, he lives alone in a dark house, without a wife or children, disliked by those around him. Scrooge has an office with a single employee (Bob Cratchit) in a tank-like office heated by a single lump of coal. He doesn’t associate much with friends or family, and one senses that he has few customers. He is poor by any life measure, and is likely poor relative to other bankers. At the end, through giving, he finds he enjoys life, is liked more, and (one has the sense) he may even get more business, and more money.

Scrooge (as best I can read him) believes in Malthus’s economic error of zero-sum wealth: That there is a limited amount of food, clothing, jobs, etc. and therefore Scrooge uses only the minimum, employs only the minimum, and spends only the minimum. Having more people would only mean more mouths to feed. As Scrooge says, “I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned [the workhouses]. They cost enough, and … If they [the poor] would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Scrooge, the poor rich man.

Scrooge, the poor rich man with a tiny carbon footprint.

The teaching of the spirits is the opposite, and neither that of the Democrats or Republicans. Neither that a big government is needed to redistribute the wealth, nor that the free market will do everything. But, as I read it, the spirits bring a spiritual message of personal charity and happiness. That one enriches ones-self when one give of and by ones-self — just from the desire to be good and do good. The spirit of Christmas Present assures Scrooge that no famine will result from the excess population, but tells him of his 1800 brothers and shows him the unending cornucopia of food in the marketplace: spanish onions, oranges, fat chestnuts, grapes, and squab. Christmas future then shows him his funeral, and Tim’s: the dismal end of all men, rich and not:  “Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live.” And Scrooge reforms, learns: gives a smile and a laugh, and employs a young runner to get Cratchit a fat goose. He visits his nephew Fred, a cheerful businessman for dinner, and laughs while watching Tom Topper court Fred’s plump sister-in-law.

The spirits do not redistribute Scrooge’s wealth for him, and certainly don’t present a formula for how much to give whom. Instead they present a picture of the value of joy and societal fellowship (as I read it). The spirits help Scrooge out of his mental rut so he’s sees worthy endeavors everywhere. Both hoarding and redistribution are Malthusian-Scroogian messages, as I read them. Both are based on the idea that there is only so much that the world can provide.

World wheet production

World wheat production tripled from 1960 to 2012 (faostat.fao.org), but acreage remained constant. More and more wheat from the same number of acres.

The history of food production suggests the spirits are right. The population is now three times what it was in Dickens’s day and mass starvation is not here. Instead we live among an “apoplectic opulence” of food. In a sense these are the product of new fertilizers, new tractors, and GMOs (Genetically modified organisms), but I would say it’s more the influence of better people. Plus, perhaps some extra CO2 in the air. Britons now complain about being too fat — and blame free markets for making them so. Over the last 50 years, wheat production has tripled, while the world population doubled, and the production of delicacies, like meat has expanded even faster. Unexpectedly, one sees that the opulence does not come from bringing new fields on-line — a process that would have to stop — but instead from increased production by the same tilled acres.

The opulence is not uniformly distributed, I should note. Countries that believe in Malthus and resort to hoarding or redistribution have been rewarded to see their grim prophesies fulfilled, as was Scrooge. Under Stalin, The Soviet Union redistributed grain from the unworthy farmer to the worth factory worker. The result was famine and Stalin felt vindicated by it. Even after Stalin, production never really grew under Soviet oversight, but remained at 75 Mtons/year from 1960 until the soviet collapse in 1990. Tellingly, nearly half of Soviet production was from the 3% of land under private cultivation. An unintended benefit: it appears the lack of Soviet grain was a major motivation for détente.  England had famine problems too when they enacted Malthusian “corn acts” and when they prevented worker migration Irish ownership during the potato famine. They saw starvation again under Attlee’s managed redistribution. In the US, it’s possible that behaviors like FDR scattering the bonus army may have helped prolong the depression. My sense is that the modern-day Scrooges are those against immigration “the foreigners will take our jobs,” and those who oppose paying folks on time, or nuclear and coal for fear that we will warm the planet. Their vision of America-yet-to-be matches Scrooge’s: a one-man work-force in a tank office heated by a single piece of coal.

Now I must admit that I have no simple formula for the correct charity standard. How does a nation provide enough, but not so much that it removes motivation– and the joy of success. Perhaps all I can say is that there is a best path between hoarding and false generosity. Those pushing the extremes are not helping, but creating a Dickensian world of sadness and gloom. Rejoice with me then, and with the reformed Scrooge. God bless us all, each and every one.

Robert Buxbaum, January 7, 2015. Some ideas here from Jerry Bowyer in last year’s Forbes.

What is learning?

3 Replies

It is common to spend the most of one’s youth in school — presumably learning something. The financial cost for primary education is a few hundred thousand dollars, borne by the state, plus 13 years or so of the student’s life. College learning costs another $50,000 to $200,000, borne by the student, plus another 4-6 years of life. The indication that you’ve learned something appears, in many majors by the ability to get a job that pays more than the school financial cost. But there is also a sense that you’ve learned something, and this is perhaps the only reward for students of film, religion, or archeology. My question is based mostly on this part: what is this learning. Is it the same as knowledge, a set of facts, or satisfaction — perhaps you could be as satisfied by ignorance or drugs. How do you evaluate the spiritual payback from 4-6 years of college? I don’t have all the answers, but ask to exercise my ignorance.

It would seem to me that an important standard of learning is that it should develop the mind and not corrupt it. But how do you recognize the difference? it seems to me one should leave with a set of mental skills should be new to you, recognizable to a normal outsider, and somewhat useful, as in the poem “Botany” even if you don’t use it. I’m not sure if the skills have to be true, by the way, or how useful they have to be. Perhaps developing a new confusion is better than having false notions — knowing that you doubt something.

sometimes education is the removal of false notions.

Sometimes learning can be the development of doubt.

If you’ve been educated in music, it seems to me you should be able to make sounds that appear pleasant to a normal listener; if you’ve been educated in mechanics, you should be able to make machines that work, and if you’ve been educated to think… perhaps then you should be able to walk into a discussion about something you once thought was true, and show that it is really false to an extent that others would accept it (and act upon it?). That is, my suspicion is that learning should involve an identifiable change –not only internal satisfaction, and I also suspect learning the new must involve unlearning the old.

Liberal Education may not be useful, or elevating

Education that isn’t useful isn’t particularly elevating

And that leads us to facts and methods: knowledge. Facts are good, they are the fuel and  substance of learning. Without facts there is nothing for the learning to attach to. But facts are often wrong — the ignorance of others, and even when right, they can be  deceptive. If you’ve learned the moon is made of rock, or out of green cheese, it’s pretty much the same unless there is a reason to think the fact you’ve learned is true, and unless you’ve a good understanding of what the fact ‘means.’ I can imagine a rock that is organic (a gall stone) and less solid than some (old) green cheese. The word rock or cheese must mean something to you to be a fact. Similarly in all subjects; if you learn that Shakespeare is a better writer than Poe, you should have a reason to believe it, and a clear understanding of the word ‘better’ in this context.

Turning to the knowledge of methods. It seems to me that learning a new method of thought, action, or argument is a necessary component of learning– one might even call it virtue, but this too seems to have limitations if it is not directed to use. A person is half-educated if he leaves school knowing how to do geometric proofs, but never doing any, or knowing how to run a great business, but never running one. A science graduate should at least be able to use the techniques learned to demonstrate that the world is made of atoms, and that the sun does not circle the earth and perhaps more. An argument can be made for traditional education areas of logic, rhetoric, mathematics, and dialectic. But these seem useless unless they are applied to a worthy end. One should do more with the new methods than to win drawing-room arguments.

There should be some satisfaction to accomplishments, but I'm not sure how it's learned.

Learning should provide satisfaction –in particular religious learning — but it’s nicer if it goes with doing good for someone (not only the poor) and the ability to earn an honest income. 

There should be a moral component of learning too, but here I feel less certain in describing it, or describing how it should be taught. Theodore Roosevelt said that “An uneducated man can steal from a rail car, “but an educated one can steal the whole railroad.” but perhaps stealing the railroad isn’t such a bad thing if it’s done legally. And as I don’t quite know when the honest stock deal is moral, I’m even more in the dark as to how to teach one to recognize the moral from the immoral in these situations. Two thoughts here: a student deserves some satisfaction from his or her learning and (from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) to be moral, the student has to earn an honest income. One who can not earn a living is bound to steal from someone sooner or later.

A final sign of learning, and perhaps it’s crown, is creativity, the ability to come to new understandings and develop new things. To do this productively requires some knowledge of the past plus an indescribable view of the future. A spark? A divine madness? Schools do not seem to be able to teach that, but it can help or hinder by either encouraging it, or beating it down. If you did not possess this ability when you entered school, you are unlikely to leave with it, even if you just did drugs, but school can teach one to direct the spark productively.

I’ve noticed that our high schools focus little on the above areas, perhaps because they are hard to test. Rather classes aim to the exams, and the exams test (as best I can tell), memorization, aptitude, and exposure. A surprisingly large fraction of our students leave diagnosed as ADHD. Still, strangely, our graduates do better than the Europeans.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, December 29, 2014 (I taught in college). Here’s some advice I wrote for my 16 year old daughter in high school.

Our expanding, black hole universe

Leave a reply

In a previous post I showed a classical derivation of the mass-to-size relationship for black -holes and gave evidence to suggest that our universe (all the galaxies together) constitute a single, large black hole. Everything is inside the black hole and nothing outside but empty space — We can tell this because you can see outside from inside a black hole — it’s only others, outside who can not see in (Finkelstein, Phys Rev. 1958). Not that there appear to be others outside the universe, but if they were, they would not be able to see us.

In several ways having a private, black hole universe is a gratifying thought. It provides privacy and a nice answer to an easily proved conundrum: that the universe is not infinitely big. The black hole universe that ends as the math requires, but not with a brick wall, as i the Hitchhiker’s guide (one of badly-laid brick). There are one or two problems with this nice tidy solution. One is that the universe appears to be expanding, and black holes are not supposed to expand. Further, the universe appears to be bigger than it should be, suggesting that it expanded faster than the speed of light at some point. its radius now appears to be 40-46 billion light years despite the universe appearing to have started as a point some 14 billion years ago. That these are deeply disturbing questions does not stop NASA and Nova from publishing the picture below for use by teachers. This picture makes little sense, but it’s found in Wikipedia and most, newer books.

Standard picture of the big bang theory. Expansions, but no contractions.

Standard picture of the big bang theory: A period of faster than light expansion (inflation) then light-speed, accelerating expansion. NASA, and Wikipedia.

We think the creation event occurred some 14 billion years ago because we observe that the majority of galaxies are expanding from us at a rate proportional to their distance from us. From this proportionality between the rate of motion and the distance from us, we conclude that we were all in one spot some 14 billion years ago. Unfortunately, some of the most distant galaxies are really dim — dimmer than they would be if they were only 14 billion light years away. The model “explains this” by a period of inflation, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. The current expansion then slowed, but is accelerating again; not slowing as would be expected if it were held back by gravity of the galaxies. Why hasn’t the speed of the galaxies slowed, and how does the faster-than-light part work? No one knows. Like Dr. Who’s Tardis, our universe is bigger on the inside than seems possible.

Einstein's preferred view of the black-hole universe is one that expands and contracts at some (large) frequency. It could explain why the universe is near-uniform.

Einstein’s oscillating universe: it expands and contracts at some (large) frequency. Oscillations would explain why the universe is near-uniform, but not why it’s so big or moving outward so fast.

Einstein’s preferred view was of an infinite space universe where the mass within expands and contracts. He joked that two things were infinite, the universe and stupidity… see my explanation... In theory, gravity could drive the regular contractions to an extent that would turn entropy backward. Einstein’s oscillating model would explain how the universe is reasonably stable and near-uniform in temperature, but it’s not clear how his universe could be bigger than 14 billion light years across, or how it could continue to expand as fast as it does. A new view, published this month suggests that there are two universes, one going forward in time the other backward. The backward in time part of the universe could be antimatter, or regular matter going anti entropy (that’s how I understand it — If it’s antimatter, we’d run into the it all the time). Random other ideas float through the physics literature: that we’re connected to other space through a black hole/worm hole, perhaps to many other universes by many worm holes in fractal chaos, see for example, Physics Reports, 1992.

The forward-in-time expansion part of the two universes model.

The forward-in-time expansion part of the two universes model. This drawing, like the first, is from NASA.

For all I know, there are these many black hole  tunnels to parallel universes. Perhaps the universal constant and all these black-hole tunnels are windows on quantum mechanics. At some point the logic of the universe seems as perverse as in the Hitchhiker guide.

Something I didn’t mention yet is the Higgs boson, the so-called God particle. As in the joke, it’s supposed to be responsible for mass. The idea is that all particles have mass only by interaction with these near-invisible Higgs particles. Strong interactions with the Higgs are what make these particles heavier, while weaker – interacting particles are perceived to have less gravity and inertia. But this seems to me to be the theory that Einstein’s relativity and the 1919 eclipse put to rest. There is no easy way for a particle model like this to explain relativistic warping of space-time. Without mass being able to warp space-time you’d see various degrees of light bending around the sun, and preferential gravity in the direction of our planet’s motion: things we do not see. We’re back in 1900, looking for some plausible explanation for the uniform speed of light and Lawrence contraction of space.As likely an explanation as any the_hitchhikers_guide_to_the_galaxy

Dr. r µ ßuxbaum. December 20, 2014. The  meaning of the universe could be 42 for all I know, or just pickles down the worm hole. No religion seems to accept the 14 billion year old universe, and for all I know the God of creation has a wicked sense of humor. Carry a towel and don’t think too much.

A simple, classical view of and into black holes

1 Reply

Black holes are regions of the universe where gravity is so strong that light can not emerge. And, since the motion of light is related to the fundamental structure of space and time, they must also be regions where space curves on itself, and where time appears to stop — at least as seen by us, from outside the black hole. But what does space-time look like inside the black hole.

NASA's semi-useless depiction of a black hole -- one they created for educators. I'm not sure what you're supposed to understand from this.

NASA’s semi-useless depiction of a black hole — one they created for educators. Though it’s sort of true, I’m not sure what you’re supposed to understand from this. I hope to present a better version.

From our outside perspective, an object tossed into a black hole will appear to move slower as it approaches the hole, and at the hole horizon it will appear to have stopped. From the inside of the hole, the object appears to just fall right in. Some claim that tidal force will rip it apart, but I think that’s a mistake. Here’s a simple, classical way to calculate the size of a black hole, and to understand why things look like they do and do what they do.

Lets begin with light, and accept, for now, that light travels in particle form. We call these particles photons; they have both an energy and a mass, and mostly move in straight lines. The energy of a photon is related to its frequency by way of Plank’s constant. E = hν, where E is the photon energy, h is Plank’s constant and ν is frequency. The photon mass is related to its energy by way of the formula m=E/c2, a formula that is surprisingly easy to derive, and often shown as E= mc2. The version that’s relevant to photons and black holes is:

m =  hν/c2.

Now consider that gravity affects ν by affecting the energy of the photon. As a photon goes up, the energy and frequency goes down as energy is lost. The gravitational force between a star, mass M, and this photon, mass m, is described as follows:

F = -GMm/r2

where F is force, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the distance of the photon from the center of the star and M is the mass of the star. The amount of photon energy lost to gravity as it rises from the surface is the integral of the force.

∆E = – ∫Fdr = ∫GMm/r2 dr = -GMm/r

Lets consider a photon of original energy E° and original mass m°= E°/c2. If ∆E = m°c2, all the energy of the original photon is lost and the photon disappears. Now, lets figure out the height, r° such that all of the original energy, E° is lost in rising away from the center of a star, mass M. That is let calculate the r for which ∆E = -E°. We’ll assume, for now, that the photon mass remains constant at m°.

E° = GMm°/r° = GME°/c2r°.

We now eliminate E° from the equation and solve for this special radius, r°:

r° =  GM/c2.

This would be the radius of a black hole if space didn’t curve and if the mass of the photon didn’t decrease as it rose. While neither of these assumptions is true, the errors nearly cancel, and the true value for r° is double the size calculated this way.

r° = 2GM/c2

r° = 2.95 km (M/Msun).

schwarzschild

Karl Schwarzschild 1873-1916.

The first person to do this calculation was Karl Schwarzschild and r° is called the Schwarzschild radius. This is the minimal radius for a star of mass M to produce closed space-time; a black hole. Msun is the mass of our sun, sol, 2 × 1030 kg.  To make a black hole one would have to compress the mass of our sun into a ball of 2.95 km radius, about the size of a small asteroid. Space-time would close around it, and light starting from the surface would not be able to escape.

As it happens, our sun is far bigger than an asteroid and is not a black hole: we can see light from the sun’s surface with minimal space-time deformation (there is some seen in the orbit of Mercury). Still, if the mass were a lot bigger, the radius would be a lot bigger and the density would be less. Consider a black hole the same mass as our galaxy, about 1 x1012 solar masses, or 2 x 1042  kg. This number is ten times what you might expect since our galaxy is 90% dark matter. The Schwarzschild radius with the mass of our galaxy would be 3 x 1012 km, or 0.3 light years. That’s far bigger than our solar system, and about 1/20 the distance to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. This is a very big black hole, though it is far smaller than our galaxy, 5 x 1017 km, or 50,000 light years. The density, though is not all that high.

Now let’s consider a black hole comprising 15 billion galaxies, the mass of the known universe. The folks at Cornell estimate the sum of dark and luminous matter in the universe to be 3 x 1052 kg, about 15 billion times the mass of our galaxy. This does not include the mass hidden in the form of dark energy, but no one’s sure what dark energy is, or even if it really exists. A black hole encompassing this, known mass would have a Schwarzschild radius about 4.5 billion light years, or about 1/3 the actual size of the universe when size is calculated based on its Hubble-constant age, 14 billion years. The universe may be 2-3 times bigger than this on the inside because space is curved and, rather like Dr. Who’s Tardis it’s bigger on the inside, but in astronomical terms a factor of 3 or 10 is nothing: the actual size of the known universe is remarkably similar to its Schwarzschild radius, and this is without considering the mass its dark energy must have if it exists.

Standard picture of the big bang theory. Dark energy causes the latter-stage expansion.

Standard picture of the big bang theory. Dark energy causes the latter-stage expansion.

The evidence for dark energy is that the universe is expanding faster and faster instead of slowing. See figure. There is no visible reason for the acceleration, but it’s there. The source of the energy might be some zero-point effect, but wherever it comes from, the significant amount of energy must have significant mass, E = mc2. If the mass of this energy is 3 to 10 times the physical mass, as seems possible, we are living inside a large black hole, something many physicists, including Einstein considered extremely likely and aesthetically pleasing. Einstein originally didn’t consider the possibility that the hole could be expanding, but a reviewer of one of his articles convinced him it was possible.

Based on the above, we now know how to calculate the size of a black hole of any mass, and we now know what a black hole the size of the universe would look like from the inside. It looks just like home. Wait for further posts on curved space-time. For some reason, no religion seems to embrace science’s 14 billion year old, black-hole universe (expanding or not). As for the tidal forces around black holes, they are horrific only for the small black holes that most people write about. If the black hole is big, the tidal forces are small.

 Dr. µß Buxbaum Nov 17, 2014. The idea for this post came from an essay by Isaac Asimov that I read in a collection called “Buy Jupiter.” You can drink to the Schwarzchild radius with my new R° cocktail.

When is loyalty a good thing? pt. 1

2 Replies

Loyalty to a person or institution is generally presented as a good thing — a sign of good character. Disloyalty, by contrast, is considered one of the basest of character traits — the sign of a dastard, a poltroon. But I’d like to make the case that the loyalty that leaders demand (the most common loyalty situation) isn’t real loyalty, but stupidity or worse, toadyship disguised as loyalty. I’d further like to suggest that this attachment hurts the leaders as much as the followers in most situations — well, nearly as much. That is, a sane leader is better off where there is a viable alternative to his product, leadership, or service — a loyal opposition party, as it were.

If you give loyalty for free don't expect it in return.

If you give loyalty above your self interest, don’t expect it in return. If you don’t value yourself, no one else will.

But first, what is Loyalty? If I believe a teacher because he makes sense, or serve a boss because he pays me well, this is not loyalty, but common self-interest. Similarly, if I eat at a restaurant or buy a product regularly, it isn’t loyalty if the quality is particularly good and the prices particularly reasonable. Loyalty is when you eat at a place despite the quality being bad, or the prices high; or follow a leader who pays poorly and provides only danger and hardship. Or who’s crooked and damaging to your sense of self.

If you give a company or group loyalty for free, they are likely to take it and you for granted; if you don't value yourself, no one else will.

If you give a company or person loyal service, they are likely to take it and you for granted; Matt Johnson, 2010.

In general, there are only two reasons why any person would follow a leader like this. One is an attachment to the leader’s vision of the horrible future if you do not. Tales of grisly torture from a distant enemy are good to keep the underlings in their place. An even better reason is attachment to a brilliant future if you do suffer in the present. Tales of the glorious messianic future where you and those you love benefit from the current struggle and sacrifice. It doesn’t have to be a godly messiah; communism presents a messianic vision without a god, but it’s glorious, and the sun always shines. Generally speaking leaders who ask for loyalty ask from both perspectives: a horrible enemy at the gates, and a glorious future if you follow.

There may be a rational basis to fear a grisly enemy, or to suffer and follow in hopes of a glorious future, but if you find you are being asked to follow a single individual or a group that’s controlled by one individual, it’s worthwhile worrying that the leader may not be loyalty to you. Ask yourself: does the leader share real power and information? Does the leader make you feel worthless for the heck of it? If you have a leader like that, it might be worth considering: if the messianic vision ever does materialize (unlikely) the leader may forget to reward your part. History has quite a few examples of this.

Loyalty to country includes the imperative to try to improve the leadership.

Loyalty to country requires one try to improve the leadership. Leadership rarely agrees.

Where real loyalty shows up as a sign of a fine personality, is in marriage where both parties share power, money, and information. Or in loyalty to a country where you (or your child) has a real, rational chance of being leader. If you really trust the significant other (a good marriage) or where there is reason to think one’s home and family will benefit from one’s personal sacrifice, one might rationally give up ones comfort and life following to protect one’s significant others. Even so, the real loyalty is not to the leader, but rather to an organization that one believes will protect one’s children and community. A leads who asks you to kill innocents (Al Qaeda, Stalin, HItler, Jonestown), or who amuses himself by your suffering, e.g. (Stalin) probably has lost the connection between your loyalty and the goal. (Cue the song– we don’t get fooled again).

An honest military leader will have a soldier council or protective group above him to keep him (and others) from over-reaching. There will also be a time limit on the loyalty commitment and an explicit understanding that service does not include suicide, genocide, immolation, or personal embarrassment for the amusement of others. There is an also understanding that the follower’s life and well-being will not be sacrificed in vain, and that no one will be expected to accept suicide rather than capture. On the other hand, a soldier who runs away from all danger and thus endangers his fellows or mission should expect punishment or courts-marshal.

Church groups don't often look favorably on oversight

Church groups don’t often look favorably on oversight

Many groups don’t tolerate oversight of this type, and these groups should be viewed with suspicion. Church groups for example, are often led by those would like you to believe that suspicion of them is suspicion of God, it isn’t — it’s suspicion of a person. An honest leader gives the option of going to the police or the union representative, or the newspaper if necessary. Without redress, the worker/soldier/churchman may come to suffer needlessly or come to commit atrocities because of the power of the organization or the personal charisma of the leader. Any organization with a messianic vision of the future is dangerous; all the more so if there is no half-way point, no real sharing of power in the way to get there, and no real oversight for the grand-high pooh-bah (or whatever the grand leader’s title). Let the follower beware.

A Parable: The Donkey and the Brigands, by I don’t know who (I can’t find a source, but know this isn’t my own creation).

There once was a farmer who had a donkey — a talking donkey, as is the way with these parables. At one point, as they were traveling through the woods, they heard the approach of brigands (thieves). “Move quickly,” the farmer said to the donkey, otherwise we’ll be captured.” “Will the brigands treat me any worse than you do?” asked the donkey. “No,” said the farmer, about the same.” “Will they feed me any less than you do, or beat me any more?” “No,” said the farmer, about the same, I’d guess.” Will they load me any heavier, or make me go on longer journeys?” No, said the farmer, about the same, I’d guess.” “When I’m too old to work, will they keep me in my old age, or will they kill me, as you likely will for animal feed and for my bones and skin?” “Probably they’ll do as I would,” said the farmer. “In that case,” said the donkey, “I’ll go at my pace and what will be with the capture will be.” The moral: loyal service has to be a two-way street.

In part 2 of this essay, I’ll explain why even the leader doesn’t benefit from your complete loyalty.

Robert Buxbaum, October 20, 2014. I run my own business, and sometimes think about it, and life.

On being a 16 year old girl

2 Replies

I’m not a teenage girl, in case you thought otherwise. I’m the father of a girl who just turned 16 though, and she asked me to write on the subject of what to expect from the next year or so. Here’s my sense of expectations.

You'll find yourself creeping up on adulthood, as a partner, not a kid; it's a scary and wonderful transition.

You’ll find yourself creeping up on adulthood, as a partner, not a kid; it’s a scary and wonderful transition.

In retrospect, you’re likely to say that 16 was among the best years of your life. These are the last glorious, innocent days with friends: days before competition means anything, before you really have to think of the world beyond your high school community. You are still hanging out, working together, and trying to feel your way towards a dim future as adults. Sorry to say, that’s in retrospect. While living through it, you’ll find this year fairly boring, and somewhat nerve-wracking. You’ll find your time filled with activities: school, home, hobbies. You’re likely to find these activities somewhat less stressful than before, because you’re more used to them and higher-up in the pecking order. Still, there are a lot of activities, and you’ll notice your day is pretty full. My advice: take time to enjoy your friends. Take pictures; they’ll be priceless.

At sixteen hobbies begin to be taken more seriously.

At sixteen, hobbies begin to be taken more seriously.

For both boys and girls, you are beginning the single most difficult, painful, and important transition of your life: the transition to adulthood. It’s not painful yet, but it will get worse in the next year or two. If all goes well, by age 22 or 23, you will be through it. Once through it, you will think of yourself as an independent moiety: someone who’s formed by us (your parents, family, and friends) but not defined by us. Once through it, if all goes well, you will be able to support yourself financially, and you will be able to live on your own. You are likely to want to live on your own too (teary smile) at least for a good portion of the year. At 16, this is a dimly seen, scary future, far off in the fog.

At this  point, you’re still tied to us, and I’m glad you don’t resent it. You’re happy to be a daughter, a sister to your siblings, a peer to your friends, and a student in your high school. Some teachers and classes you like, others less so. Your grades and hobbies are important to you, but your friends are more important. It’s nice to have high grades, but not so important as to disturb a friendship. You think of your hobbies as fun sidelights, and home as a place to relax with them. At home you write, read, draw, or cook for the fun of it. As the next few years wear on, this will change. You’ll think of yourself more as a writer, an artist, or plumber; as a private first class, or whatever. You’ll be good at something, not just generally bright. Some friends will fit better into this self-view; the friends who don’t fit will slowly drift away.

Sexuality rears its head in new ways at 16.

Sex rears its head unexpectedly.

At 16, I started thinking of myself as ‘an engineer’ or perhaps as a scientist or mathematician based on my hobbies and what I was good at in school. It became clear that I was not going to be an athlete, a historian, or a musician (though I retained an interest). Dropping options is a big, painful part of the transition. I recall almost hearing the doors closing behind me. You want to turn back, to catch the options. Know that, to not choose is to choose. As those doors close (and they should) new, better ones open that you didn’t realize existed. Losing friends and hobbies that are too high maintenance is good for you, and for them at this stage. Sex will rear its head, unexpectedly, and in new ways. Sexuality and homosexuality were words; for some they are becoming the dominant reality. For better or worse, you’ll be drawn in.

As the year draws to a close, you’re likely to find our parental presence more and more annoying. This is a good thing; it’s what will get you out the door, and launch you as a person. We’re on your side here, but won’t be able to help as your old you will begin to fight the new one. You plan to go to college, perhaps away from home (both options are good), but some of your friends will want to stay at home and do on-line vocational courses, or get married as soon as possible. You’ll likely drift away from those friends. Some college-bound friends will pick schools far from yours, or will pick majors or activities that you’re not interested in. You’re likely to find yourself gravitating to those friends who’re going to your college or for majors that match yours. There is pain in realizing that you won’t be as close with the remaining friends. Know that doors are opening here in two ways. First, just as high school provided your current friends, college and pre-college will provide you a new group — ones you may keep longer since the relationship based on shared direction, not just shared experiences. Also, know that some of the friends who drift away now will come back later — perhaps when you and they are married.

You may come to realize that some of your closest friends are your competitors for college places, scholarships. This may seem bad (or disloyal) but it’s good. Competition will help you improve, and will increase your drive, and that’s what you need this year. Think of the relationship in “A separate peace.” Think of how the relationship between the young Harper Lee and Truman Capote likely shaped “to kill a mockingbird” and furthered both of their careers. Competition with your cousins is good too. Watch how they deal with competition and life choices. Are there family members that could be life models or coaches? A big reason we have the family reunions is so that you can have a choice of life models and coaches.

Teen jobs are rarely all that exciting, but are an important part of personal development.

Teen jobs are rarely all that exciting, but are an important part of personal development.

Money will become a lot more important in the next few years — for things, travel, school applications, and clothes. You’re likely to find it’s annoying to get your money from us, and you’re likely to start working more for money. This is the beginning of financial independence. As you do, you’ll find yourself becoming defined by the job you do, how much you make, and what you spend your money on. This is good, but includes a loss of Idyl. Your first jobs will not be great, and you may find leaches hanging on: financial and emotional. As annoying as it is to have a leech, it’s worse to be the leach. Try to avoid it; be a good friend or neighbor. You may want to buy stock, or start a company, or produce a product for sale: a book, album, or whatever. If it’s something you’re interested in and you try to make money at it, the experience will be worth the effort. Even if it turns out a financial failure, it will be an important part of the emotional and financial person you make of yourself. If you don’t go into business, you may get involved in politics or religion, moving right or left. That’s OK, and very normal — another part of self-development.

You may find yourself re-evaluating your thoughts on religion and government.

You’re already beginning to develop wonderful life-skills. We don’t compliment you enough on this. You’ve learned to cook eggs and noodles, and find you like the independence it gives. That’s the ticket to adulthood. You’ll need more life skills to give you real independence, but you’re on the right track. You’ll need to learn to do laundry, shopping, and cleaning. You’re likely to need to be better at driving, writing, and negotiating: all difficult things. You’re likely to go through emotional cycles or depression as you think of the stuff you can’t do, or don’t understand, the friends you’re losing, or the things you’d like to do, but can’t. Don’t stress; you’ve got 5 years, or more. We’re very proud of you, and will try to help by tutoring, hugs, more-freedom, and the assurance that independence is worth the struggle. All beginnings are difficult, and this is a big beginning.

You can define yourself by your hobbies or by your man, but try not to define yourself by your man's hobbies.

You can define yourself by your hobbies or by your man, but try not to define yourself by your man’s hobbies.

Switching schools includes the opportunity to reinvent yourself as something completely new. Most people do this to a greater or lesser extent. Embrace your inner weirdo, but not your inner crook. Try to invent yourself as something fun and active, not sinful or destructive. Try to be the young scholar, mechanic, artist, or athlete, not the young goth, gangster, or drug addict. High schools try to help here by exposing you to books and movies about alienated 16-20 year olds. Popular in my day were Great Expectations, The Outsiders, Catcher in the Rye, The Dead Poets Society, To Kill a Mockingbird, Slaughterhouse 5, and A Separate Peace. Take what comfort you can. School assignments will include essays on law, government, and God. Write honestly, with conviction. These assignments can help develop your life views and personality. We’ll try not to stifle you here, even when your opinions differ significantly from ours. Of course, if you come up with something truly stupid or awesome, we’ll tell you.

Your friends will start dating, or discussing boys, and you are almost certain to start looking at boys differently: first as exciting possibilities, and then as potential mates. Part of the attraction involves the ability to define yourself by the boy you choose. This is a comfort and a curse. The comfort is that it avoids you having to define yourself, or grow up quite. The curse is that the boy doesn’t know who he is either. You’ll find that some boys are nice and some are grounded, others are not. And some are really messed up. With the right kind, you’ll find you can do more as a pair than as a single. Eventually you’re likely to pair off; in our community that happens at about 21-24. When it happens, I hope it’s with a nice, grounded fellow. It works best if you first know who you are, but even otherwise, it can work. Couples sometimes discover who they are together. And, at that point the transition will be over. You’ll be a married adult; you’ll introduce yourself as Mrs Shnicklefritz, or as Dr. and Mr Schniklefritz, or whatever, and we’ll prepare ourselves to spoil our grandkids.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, proud father of you and your two older siblings. October 4, 2014. Though further along in their life paths, I can hope that the older siblings will enjoy these thoughts too. I’ve previously mused about US education, and whether ADHD was a real disease. For my older daughter’s 21st birthday, I invented a new mixed drink.

Dr. Who’s Quantum reality viewed as diffusion

1 Reply

It’s very hard to get the meaning of life from science because reality is very strange, Further, science is mathematical, and the math relations for reality can be re-arranged. One arrangement of the terms will suggest a version of causality, while another will suggest a different causality. As Dr. Who points out, in non-linear, non-objective terms, there’s no causality, but rather a wibbly-wobbely ball of timey-wimey stuff.

Time as a ball of wibblely wobbly timey wimey stuff.

Reality is a ball of  timey wimpy stuff, Dr. Who.

To this end, I’ll provide my favorite way of looking at the timey-wimey way of the world by rearranging the equations of quantum mechanics into a sort of diffusion. It’s not the diffusion of something you’re quite familiar with, but rather a timey-wimey wave-stuff referred to as Ψ. It’s part real and part imaginary, and the only relationship between ψ and life is that the chance of finding something somewhere is proportional Ψ*|Ψ. The diffusion of this half-imaginary stuff is the underpinning of reality — if viewed in a certain way.

First let’s consider the steady diffusion of a normal (un-quantum) material. If there is a lot of it, like when there’s perfume off of a prima donna, you can say that N = -D dc/dx where N is the flux of perfume (molecules per minute per area), dc/dx is a concentration gradient (there’s more perfume near her than near you), and D is a diffusivity, a number related to the mobility of those perfume molecules. 

We can further generalize the diffusion of an ordinary material for a case where concentration varies with time because of reaction or a difference between the in-rate and the out rate, with reaction added as a secondary accumulator, we can write: dc/dt = reaction + dN/dx = reaction + D d2c/dx2. For a first order reaction, for example radioactive decay, reaction = -ßc, and 

dc/dt = -ßc + D d2c/dx2               (1)

where ß is the radioactive decay constant of the material whose concentration is c.

Viewed in a certain way, the most relevant equation for reality, the time-dependent Schrödinger wave equation (semi-derived here), fits into the same diffusion-reaction form:

dΨ/dt = – 2iπV/h Ψ + hi/4πm d2Ψ/dx2                (2)

Instead of reality involving the motion of a real material (perfume, radioactive radon, etc.) with a real concentration, c, in this relation, the material can not be sensed directly, and the concentration, Ψ, is semi -imaginary. Here, h is plank’s constant, i is the imaginary number, √-1, m is the mass of the real material, and V is potential energy. When dealing with reactions or charged materials, it’s relevant that V will vary with position (e.g. electrons’ energy is lower when they are near protons). The diffusivity term here is imaginary, hi/4πm, but that’s OK, Ψ is part imaginary, and we’d expect that potential energy is something of a destroyer of Ψ: the likelihood of finding something at a spot goes down where the energy is high.

The form of this diffusion is linear, a mathematical term that refers to equations where solution that works for Ψ will also work for 2Ψ. Generally speaking linear solutions have exp() terms in them, and that’s especially likely here as the only place where you see a time term is on the left. For most cases we can say that

Ψ = ψ exp(-2iπE/h)t               (3)

where ψ is not a function of anything but x (space) and E is the energy of the thing whose behavior is described by Ψ. If you take the derivative of equation 3 this with respect to time, t, you get

dΨ/dt = ψ (-2iπE/h) exp(-2iπE/h)t = (-2iπE/h)Ψ.               (4)

If you insert this into equation 2, you’ll notice that the form of the first term is now identical to the second, with energy appearing identically in both terms. Divide now by exp(-2iπE/h)t, and you get the following equation:

(E-V) ψ =  -h2/8π2m d2ψ/dx2                      (5)

where ψ can be thought of as the physical concentration in space of the timey-wimey stuff. ψ is still wibbly-wobbley, but no longer timey-wimey. Now ψ- squared is the likelihood of finding the stuff somewhere at any time, and E, the energy of the thing. For most things in normal conditions, E is quantized and equals approximately kT. That is E of the thing equals, typically, a quantized energy state that’s nearly Boltzmann’s constant times temperature.

You now want to check that the approximation in equation 3-5 was legitimate. You do this by checking if the length-scale implicit in exp(-2iπE/h)t is small relative to the length-scales of the action. If it is (and it usually is), You are free to solve for ψ at any E and V using normal mathematics, by analytic or digital means, for example this way. ψ will be wibbely-wobbely but won’t be timey-wimey. That is, the space behavior of the thing will be peculiar with the item in forbidden locations, but there won’t be time reversal. For time reversal, you need small space features (like here) or entanglement.

Equation 5 can be considered a simple steady state diffusion equation. The stuff whose concentration is ψ is created wherever E is greater than V, and is destroyed wherever V is greater than E. The stuff then continuously diffuses from the former area to the latter establishing a time-independent concentration profile. E is quantized (can only be some specific values) since matter can never be created of destroyed, and it is only at specific values of E that this happens in Equation 5. For a particle in a flat box, E and ψ are found, typically, by realizing that the format of ψ must be a sin function (and ignoring an infinity). For more complex potential energy surfaces, it’s best to use a matrix solution for ψ along with non-continuous calculous. This avoids the infinity, and is a lot more flexible besides.

When you detect a material in some spot, you can imagine that the space- function ψ collapses, but even that isn’t clear as you can never know the position and velocity of a thing simultaneously, so doesn’t collapse all that much. And as for what the stuff is that diffuses and has concentration ψ, no-one knows, but it behaves like a stuff. And as to why it diffuses, perhaps it’s jiggled by unseen photons. I don’t know if this is what happens, but it’s a way I often choose to imagine reality — a moving, unseen material with real and imaginary (spiritual ?) parts, whose concentration, ψ, is related to experience, but not directly experienced.

This is not the only way the equations can be rearranged. Another way of thinking of things is as the sum of path integrals — an approach that appears to me as a many-world version, with fixed-points in time (another Dr Who feature). In this view, every object takes every path possible between these points, and reality as the sum of all the versions, including some that have time reversals. Richard Feynman explains this path integral approach here. If it doesn’t make more sense than my version, that’s OK. There is no version of the quantum equations that will make total, rational sense. All the true ones are mathematically equivalent — totally equal, but differ in the “meaning”. That is, if you were to impose meaning on the math terms, the meaning would be totally different. That’s not to say that all explanations are equally valid — most versions are totally wrong, but there are many, equally valid math version to fit many, equally valid religious or philosophic world views. The various religions, I think, are uncomfortable with having so many completely different views being totally equal because (as I understand it) each wants exclusive ownership of truth. Since this is never so for math, I claim religion is the opposite of science. Religion is trying to find The Meaning of life, and science is trying to match experiential truth — and ideally useful truth; knowing the meaning of life isn’t that useful in a knife fight.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, July 9, 2014. If nothing else, you now perhaps understand Dr. Who more than you did previously. If you liked this, see here for a view of political happiness in terms of the thermodynamics of free-energy minimization.

Buddhists, Hindus and dentists joke

At the dentists’ office, Buddhist and Hindu monks don’t need anesthesia to have their teeth worked on. They transcend dental medication.

It’s funny because it’s a 3 word pun, and because there is something magical about the ability of people to conquer pain through meditation.

Focussed meditation can keep you from worry and other pain.

Focused meditation can keep you from worry and some physical pain. As for thugs, that’s more controversial. It’s possible that laughter, or looking at a spot will do as much. Gahan Wilson

The types of meditation, as I understand it, are two which are four. The two are focused and non-focused. focused meditation is supposed to allow you to conquer pain, both physical and spiritual. You concentrate on your breathing, or some other rhythmic action and thought; and whenever you realize that your mind is wandering you bring it back. A popular version is called square breathing: you breath in, hold, breath out, hold, etc. In time there is a sense of calm with the world. In theory, you can transcend dental medication, but I use the normal western practice of Novocaine plus gas. Meditation practitioners claim that directed meditation can also protect you from villains and bring peace in the world; I suspect that’s true, but also suspect that humor, or staring at a spot will do as much. I suspect that Dr Seuss has done wonders for peace in the world.

The second major version of mediation is non-focused; it can bring enlightenment if you use it right. You repeat a mantra slowly and let your mind wander along some general paths. The classic incantatory mantra is OM, and the classic paths include: what am I doing with my life, imagine a stick with one end, what is the sound of a hand clapping. The enlightenment that is supposed to arise is supposed to promote non-violence, charity, and a sense of oneness with the all. In general, I’ve found that letting one’s mind wander is a great way to solve difficult problems and to help one decide whether certain situations are worth being involved with. To the extent I’ve used a mantra, it’s versions of “radiator not leaking, mind leaking,” or “computer solution not unstable, mind unstable.” In the calm of realizing there is a solution, I’ve generally been able to find a solution.

Enlightenment can be as simple as realizing that you're there already or that you shouldn't manage a country that's unlike you and dislikes you.

Enlightenment can be as simple as realizing that you’re there already.

As for the other 2 types of meditation, it depends. To some, it involves rocking to the sound of the one hand clapping (or not). To some, it’s realizing you’re there already, or that you really don’t want to get involved in an Asian war to defend and manage a country that’s completely unlike yours, and that dislikes yours as well, or that it’s OK to use Novocaine and gas when you have your teeth worked on. That’s what they are there for.

Robert E. Buxbaum, May 24, 2014. Some wisdom from the Jewish mystics: Wherever you go, there you are, as for your baggage, who knows? Tea, with the first sip joy, with the second, satisfaction, with the third, Danish.

On gays, God, and owning Canadians

Here’s a great letter to Dr. Laura. I don’t know what Dr. Laura said to get this guy started, but I’ll answer at the end as if it came to me. I get good comments too, but mine are more thoughtful, and  less funny.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian.)

And my answer is: You CAN own a Canadian: go ice fishing with the right bait; put out some Molson’s or Labatt’s while playing the “Hockey Night in Canada” theme. They’ll come, eh.

Just because the Bible allows something, that doesn’t mean it’s a general good, and just because the Bible opposes something that doesn’t mean it’s a general bad. Generally, it’s not up to the individual “believer” to correct things by smiting. Besides, figuring out what God really want’s of each person is really tricky. He appears in a cloud, as it were (Ex. 16:10; Deut. 31:15, etc.). I’d say it’s up to the preachers to try to understand individual people and help them change for the better, ideally he (or she) first improves himself (or herself). Bible literalness isn’t a great approach to religion, I’d say, not science, not threats, nor miracle stories, but real concern and a fine example. Failing at self-improvement (and I usually do) I’d leave it to God to do the smiting. He does an awfully good job of it in the Old Testament and you wouldn’t want Him to lose the knack. R. E. Buxbaum, April 28, 2014.

It's sometimes hard to guess what God wants if you just read the Bible. Gary Hart, BC.

It’s sometimes hard to guess what God wants by just reading the Bible. Gary Hart, BC.